Has the Clinton machine lost a wheel?

It wasn't so long ago that Hillary Clinton was supposed to be running away with the Democratic nomination. With name recognition that rivaled that of Jesus Christ and a funding machine that raked in record-breaking take after record-breaking take, the primaries were a mere formality. But even early on, there were indications that the machine had a creaking wheel.

In all but one quarter of 2007 (the second), Clinton outraised Barack Obama. There was always a post-it note on the end - "X amount of the money raised cannot be used in the primaries". $5 million in the third quarter, for instance, had to be set aside for the general election. As an additional factor, a high percentage of Clinton's donors had maxed out, and so they became virtually useless for addition fundraising. Of course, that isn't a problem is Clinton sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Reality is, of course, that she didn't.

Now we find out that Clinton has loaned her campaign $5 million and will likely lend it even more. The reason is that her support is a mile wide and an inch thick (more than $40 million of her $115 million has come from five localities)- and she's already mined it down to two inches. The institutional deck-stacking that has kept her ahead of Barack Obama may be reaching its natural limit.

Of course, it's no big deal for a candidate to lend their campaign money. John Kerry did it in 2004 (and that turned out so well!) and Mitt Romney has self-funded his campaign to the tune of millions (and that is turning out so well!). What is interesting about the Clinton self-loan is that it was done very quietly, almost as if no one was supposed to find out. The idea that she is loaning herself money to show that she is committed to it or because she "believe[s] very strongly in this campaign" is laughable. Of course she believes in what she's doing. But does she believe in it more in January than she did in December or all of 2007? If so, why has she suddenly started believing in herself? If not, then why throw out such a stupid line?

Of course, there is the nagging problem with uber-fundraiser Norman Hsu. It isn't that anyone blames Clinton for Hsu's malefeasance - it's that they blame her lack of judgment in accepting his services without actually, you know, checking his background and stuff (isn't "experience" supposed to be her long suit?). Then there is the slight problem of people giving contributions beyond their means. What gives? I understand that it's a big campaign and some stuff is bound to slip by - but why is Clinton's campaign the only one that seems to have these problems?

It seems odd that the candidate who has Bill Clinton criss-crossing the country can't raise enough money to keep going - ABC news is reporting that some of Clinton's staff has agreed to work without pay for the nonce. But if Hillary Clinton is going to going to be the candidate that can withstand Republican attacks (as she likes to claim) then she cannot afford to allow cheap parallels to be drawn between herself and her husband. All that is missing at this point is promises of overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom.